|
Post by sunshine on May 18, 2017 9:11:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by LINGERLONGER on May 18, 2017 9:19:45 GMT -5
As the Aunt of an overdose victim. Yes require the training, have it available, no liability I don't even care that this is a total drive by post. Thanks for sort of joining the conversation. Can you expand in your thoughts a bit? I can understand your grief. However, are you suggesting that everyone be required to know how to use, and keep on hand, a dose of Narcan? If not, where does it stop? And as a PP said earlier, if we require this, why not an Epi-pen. People die of anaphylaxis all the time.
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on May 18, 2017 9:21:06 GMT -5
I'm not even going to address the drive-by nature of this post, but exempting people from liability would require Good Samaritan laws (or something similar), would it not? Just speaking it into existence doesn't make it so. You need to have lawmakers who actually care about putting those sorts of laws in place. Oh wait... That also doesn't take into account the pressure you're putting on non-medical professionals to attempt to save someone's life. ETA: Obviously I am not a lawyer, so I don't know the exact legalities of everything. Where I live it is an epidemic. it should be available, the administering (or not) of it should be covered under a Good Samaritan law. It's an epidemic everywhere. On my FB feed, there is a new post about someone losing a loved one to an OD. Training should be available, yes. The administering devices should be available upon request after training, yes. It should not, however, be a requirement.
|
|
|
Post by LINGERLONGER on May 18, 2017 9:23:47 GMT -5
I think it would be a good idea to put it in CPR certification and keep it with other life-saving equiptment. That said, depending on the size of the library, there should be a % of people who are required to be Life-Saving certified, but not everyone should be. Maybe one to four designated, trained volunteer employees per 25-50 employees who have FT hours? If it's a small library with very few FT employees, then no fucking way. If the library is part of a larger government building (like in my hometown - town hall, tax collector, library, planning, etc. are all one building) then yes, but those people who ARE certified don't necessarily need to be librarians. This bring us back to the epi-pen question. Should those also be kept on hand wherever you go? Should librarians also be asked to learn how to administer those? Maybe a better way to handle it would be to have addicts carry Narcan on them in the same way we have people with allergies carrying epi-pens. But then addicts are notoriously unreliable, so do we want to risk putting that in their hands?
|
|
|
Post by LINGERLONGER on May 18, 2017 9:24:26 GMT -5
Where I live it is an epidemic. it should be available, the administering (or not) of it should be covered under a Good Samaritan law. It's an epidemic everywhere. On my FB feed, there is a new post about someone losing a loved one to an OD. Training should be available, yes. The administering devices should be available upon request after training, yes. It should not, however, be a requirement. Absolutely yes to your first sentence.
|
|
|
Post by eba1012 on May 18, 2017 9:24:29 GMT -5
I'm not even going to address the drive-by nature of this post, but exempting people from liability would require Good Samaritan laws (or something similar), would it not? Just speaking it into existence doesn't make it so. You need to have lawmakers who actually care about putting those sorts of laws in place. Oh wait... That also doesn't take into account the pressure you're putting on non-medical professionals to attempt to save someone's life. ETA: Obviously I am not a lawyer, so I don't know the exact legalities of everything. Where I live it is an epidemic. it should be available, the administering (or not) of it should be covered under a Good Samaritan law. Yes, it should be available, but so should lots of things. Like LINGERLONGER said, does this also apply to things like EpiPens? Make the medications available, make the training available, but don't require people to take actions they aren't comfortable with. I am sorry that you've dealt with addiction in your family. It's never easy for anyone.
|
|
|
Post by efmcc67 on May 18, 2017 9:24:43 GMT -5
As the Aunt of an overdose victim. Yes require the training, have it available, no liability I don't even care that this is a total drive by post. Thanks for sort of joining the conversation. Can you expand in your thoughts a bit? I can understand your grief. However, are you suggesting that everyone be required to know how to use, and keep on hand, a dose of Narcan? If not, where does it stop? And as a PP said earlier, if we require this, why not an Epi-pen. People die of anaphylaxis all the time. Or CPR/first aid training. I took CPR because I wanted to. It was not a requirement for my job. I generally think more training is a good thing, and research suggests that people respond better in emergencies when they've had training. However, like eba1012 said (I think it was eba1012), not everyone responds well in an emergency. We shouldn't require everyone in a public-facing position to be a first responder.
|
|
|
Post by LINGERLONGER on May 18, 2017 9:26:57 GMT -5
Where I live it is an epidemic. it should be available, the administering (or not) of it should be covered under a Good Samaritan law. Yes, it should be available, but so should lots of things. Like LINGERLONGER said, does this also apply to things like EpiPens? Make the medications available, make the training available, but don't require people to take actions they aren't comfortable with. I am sorry that you've dealt with addiction in your family. It's never easy for anyone. With the insane price of epipens I cannot see many government institutions, apart from schools, keeping it on hand just in case.
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on May 18, 2017 9:27:18 GMT -5
I don't even care that this is a total drive by post. Thanks for sort of joining the conversation. Can you expand in your thoughts a bit? I can understand your grief. However, are you suggesting that everyone be required to know how to use, and keep on hand, a dose of Narcan? If not, where does it stop? And as a PP said earlier, if we require this, why not an Epi-pen. People die of anaphylaxis all the time. Or CPR/first aid training. I took CPR because I wanted to. It was not a requirement for my job. I generally think more training is a good thing, and research suggests that people respond better in emergencies when they've had training. However, like eba1012 said (I think it was eba1012 ), not everyone responds well in an emergency. We shouldn't require everyone in a public-facing position to be a first responder.So much this.
|
|
|
Post by daub23 on May 18, 2017 9:28:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by eba1012 on May 18, 2017 9:28:21 GMT -5
Yes, it should be available, but so should lots of things. Like LINGERLONGER said, does this also apply to things like EpiPens? Make the medications available, make the training available, but don't require people to take actions they aren't comfortable with. I am sorry that you've dealt with addiction in your family. It's never easy for anyone. With the insane price of epipens I cannot see many government institutions, apart from schools, keeping it on hand just in case. This is very true. It's crazy expensive.
|
|
|
Post by daub23 on May 18, 2017 9:32:36 GMT -5
Yes, it should be available, but so should lots of things. Like LINGERLONGER said, does this also apply to things like EpiPens? Make the medications available, make the training available, but don't require people to take actions they aren't comfortable with. I am sorry that you've dealt with addiction in your family. It's never easy for anyone. With the insane price of epipens I cannot see many government institutions, apart from schools, keeping it on hand just in case. This I think would be true with Narcan, too. The cost of figuring out which institutions carry it on hand, the cost of making sure the on-hand supplies aren't expired, the cost of supplying the drug to being with, and a million other considerations and expenses would all add up. Presumably it would be funded by taxes/taxpayers, which I just can't see being extraordinarily popular, even if the drug is low-cost.
|
|
|
Post by efmcc67 on May 18, 2017 9:36:08 GMT -5
With the insane price of epipens I cannot see many government institutions, apart from schools, keeping it on hand just in case. This I think would be true with Narcan, too. The cost of figuring out which institutions carry it on hand, the cost of making sure the on-hand supplies aren't expired, the cost of supplying the drug to being with, and a million other considerations and expenses would all add up. Presumably it would be funded by taxes/taxpayers, which I just can't see being extraordinarily popular, even if the drug is low-cost. And staff costs. Someone would have to be responsible for making sure that the Narcan isn't expired, replacing it if it is, and secure while still being available. And if we put it in libraries, how many doses? My library is huge; it takes me five minutes to walk from my desk to the coffee shop. If someone ODed at the wrong end of the building, the dose may not reach them in time, even if it were on hand.
|
|
|
Post by LINGERLONGER on May 18, 2017 9:41:37 GMT -5
OH, another thing. One of the commenters said that she had received the training and knew what to look for before administering Narcan. She said they were told to look for track marks. Some people don't shoot up in the normal places so they can hide their track marks. What if someone who has hidden track marks ODs and the person responsible doesn't administer the Narcan? Or what of someone who hasn't been using for long ODs?
|
|
|
Post by daub23 on May 18, 2017 9:45:00 GMT -5
OH, another thing. One of the commenters said that she had received the training and knew what to look for before administering Narcan. She said they were told to look for track marks. Some people don't shoot up in the normal places so they can hide their track marks. What if someone who has hidden track marks ODs and the person responsible doesn't administer the Narcan? Or what of someone who hasn't been using for long ODs? Ohhh this is such a good point. The idea of putting a person with no medical training in the position of evaluating someone medically, and the implications of that, is actually kind of frightening.
|
|
|
Post by efmcc67 on May 18, 2017 9:51:42 GMT -5
OH, another thing. One of the commenters said that she had received the training and knew what to look for before administering Narcan. She said they were told to look for track marks. Some people don't shoot up in the normal places so they can hide their track marks. What if someone who has hidden track marks ODs and the person responsible doesn't administer the Narcan? Or what of someone who hasn't been using for long ODs? Ohhh this is such a good point. The idea of putting a person with no medical training in the position of evaluating someone medically, and the implications of that, is actually kind of frightening. Yes. On the flip side, I had a friend in library school who had some major medical issues, that the doctors couldn't diagnose. All of the testing gave her serious track marks. For her, collapsing in public was a very real possibility, no drugs involved, but an amateur could easily have mistaken her for an addict and administered care accordingly. Since Narcan is non-toxic to people who didn't OD, this isn't the very worst thing, but could delay the care she actually needed.
|
|
jdluvr
Seeker
Posts: 707
Likes: 863
|
Post by jdluvr on May 18, 2017 10:50:29 GMT -5
Didn't mean to post and run. Anything involving this subject it hard for me to talk about still so I had to walk away for a minute.
First off, when it comes to schools I think teachers should get training if they want to, but I feel like anyone who wants the training should receive it. However, I think it should be mandatory for school nurses to know, just like I feel like they should be required to learn cpr and how to properly administer an epipen. Part of the job for a school nurse is to be able to respond to a medical emergency until help can arrive and anymore Narcan is something vital to that.
As far as liability goes... it is a concern. I just don't think it is a big enough concern that a librarian who wants the training and thinks they could handle it from learning and taking the chance to save someone. Obviously, not every one is cut out for that kind of pressure and that is ok. That is why it shouldn't be mandatory.
Also, I think anymore that anyone who works in a building open to the public should be able to recognize the signs of an overdose without checking for track marks. I'm not saying everyone should take a class or anything on it or that it should be required learning but I think that in today's world people should be able to recognize the signs of an overdose so that when they call for help they can accurately describe what is happening to the 911 operator.
Like Tipsy said, you can't always count on visible track marks anyway. There are so many ways to get high. I'm going to get a little personal here and admit that the first time I fought addiction I didn't shoot up anything. I was too scared to. So if someone was looking for track marks to find out how to help me I would have been fucked.
|
|
|
Post by sarahbelle on May 18, 2017 10:50:34 GMT -5
I agree that it should be optional. I think that good samaritan laws protect a lot when it comes to liability. We have a AED in the library I work in and the university offers first aid training. All of the training is optional.
I'm CPR certified and have never been told that I am *obligated* to help someone if something happens in my presence.
|
|
|
Post by daub23 on May 18, 2017 11:02:00 GMT -5
Didn't mean to post and run. Anything involving this subject it hard for me to talk about still so I had to walk away for a minute. First off, when it comes to schools I think teachers should get training if they want to, but I feel like anyone who wants the training should receive it. However, I think it should be mandatory for school nurses to know, just like I feel like they should be required to learn cpr and how to properly administer an epipen. Part of the job for a school nurse is to be able to respond to a medical emergency until help can arrive and anymore Narcan is something vital to that. As far as liability goes... it is a concern. I just don't think it is a big enough concern that a librarian who wants the training and thinks they could handle it from learning and taking the chance to save someone. Obviously, not every one is cut out for that kind of pressure and that is ok. That is why it shouldn't be mandatory. Also, I think anymore that anyone who works in a building open to the public should be able to recognize the signs of an overdose without checking for track marks. I'm not saying everyone should take a class or anything on it or that it should be required learning but I think that in today's world people should be able to recognize the signs of an overdose so that when they call for help they can accurately describe what is happening to the 911 operator. Like Tipsy said, you can't always count on visible track marks anyway. There are so many ways to get high. I'm going to get a little personal here and admit that the first time I fought addiction I didn't shoot up anything. I was too scared to. So if someone was looking for track marks to find out how to help me I would have been fucked. I feel really, really uncomfortable setting that expectation on a layperson. I think that accurately describing what is happening to a 911 dispatcher and recognizing the signs of an OD are very, very different. I am comfortable telling a medical professional or someone who is acting in that capacity what is going on around me, but I would not expect someone to assess a person's medical situation or needs.
|
|
|
Post by daub23 on May 18, 2017 11:02:52 GMT -5
|
|